What is the future for Legacy DirectAdmin License holders?

Kidades said:
There's no need to maintain two different code bases or create more work..
Click to expand...
This! If we know how the 2 licence bases worked, maybe it'll shed some light..

Maintaining 2 licence bases must be extra work, even if it's just 1 line of code or a switch for each.
 
d.dobrev said:
So how about refunding every LLH license? Mine cost 299$ if memory serves.
Click to expand...
Refunding is an interesting idea. It is actually a worse option (in the long term) compared to the LLH upgrade into a discounted standard license (from the perspective of the license holder).

Let's say, hypothetically, you trade a lifetime license for a top-up in your DA account balance and use it for normal licenses. A single standard license would consume all of it in 2–10 months, depending on the LLH type you had. Once you consume it all, you start paying the full price. If you take a license switch deal, you get a 50% recurring discount. It gives you more value if you use a discounted standard license for longer than 4–20 months, depending on the LLH type you have had.

This is hypothetical because services have already been provided for years. Only a fraction of the LLH purchase price would be fair for a refund.
 
This is not about us wanting to stop using our license. We used it for a certain period, and expect to use it for life. Like fln says, the current prices are not for us. We are a different kind of user.
Fln is probably not at liberty to speak, but this thread seems to head in the direction of describing a company in economical trouble. Will it survive? It is a good thing they wake us up so we check and look around for an optional replacements. After checking w3techs I found out DA is not even in the low 0.1% of the market, I had the impression their market share was a lot bigger. I do find all of this worrying.
So why does DA not set up a closed part in this forum and contact LLH's only to discuss this? We can then change to positive thinking, possible solutions. I have several ideas but I would not place them online for everyone to read as it might possibly hurt D.A.. We are all waiting for D.A. to make a positive move so we all can move forward.
 
Last edited:
fln said:
Refunding is an interesting idea. It is actually a worse option (in the long term) compared to the LLH upgrade into a discounted standard license (from the perspective of the license holder).

Let's say, hypothetically, you trade a lifetime license for a top-up in your DA account balance and use it for normal licenses. A single standard license would consume all of it in 2–10 months, depending on the LLH type you had. Once you consume it all, you start paying the full price. If you take a license switch deal, you get a 50% recurring discount. It gives you more value if you use a discounted standard license for longer than 4–20 months, depending on the LLH type you have had.

This is hypothetical because services have already been provided for years. Only a fraction of the LLH purchase price would be fair for a refund.
Click to expand...

And as you pointed out the reason for the 2 codebases was an issue (loophole) in the licensing validation (or whatever) that your own devs did.
How is that our fault? Be reasonable here... if it weren't for LLHs you wouldn't have had the resources to do a "completely new" codebase, and now, to thank us you're trying to F us into monthly subscription (by the looks of it - any way you can). You didn't like @beansbaxter 's proposal because the amount of $$$ isn't good enough for you to maintain a "separate codebase" - OKAY, then don't. Move the LLHs onto the new codebase, let us pay for support and upgrades in a similar way @beansbaxter proposed, Disable the "pro pack sh**" most of us never needed or used. Problem solved? It should be but that's not the real problem - the real problem is - you want $$$$.

If you want to end all the drama and still have a revenue stream from the LLHs - consider this.
 
Last edited:
@smtalk

In the past, I tried to compare at CentOS6, CentOS 7 database RPMS release.
I think OS vendor do not backport database fix.

---

For example -
CentOS 7.0 shipped MariaDB 5.5 series.
Official MariaDB 5.5 was EOL in Apr 2020 (last official version was 5.5.68)

Nowadays, the latest MariaDB RPM in CentOS 7 was 5.5.68 too.
mariadb-server-5.5.68-1.el7.x86_64.rpm dated on 2020-10-14 18:55 (i.e. no updates nearly for 4 years)
ref.:


smtalk said:
I’m making this statement in the hope of providing clarity. No one has announced anything yet, no one is affected by EOL software at this time. People are not exposed to any MariaDB/MySQL vulnerabilities as long as OS provide security backports (2032
Click to expand...
 
sec-is said:
Fln is probably not at liberty to speak, but this thread seems to head in the direction of describing a company in economical trouble. Will it survive? It is a good thing they wake us up so we check and look around for an optional replacements. After checking w3techs I found out DA is not even in the low 0.1% of the market, I had the impression their market share was a lot bigger. I do find all of this worrying.
Click to expand...

I agree this looks like an act of desperation. It would be one thing if they were simply trying to eliminate the abusers.
 
Plus it looks like that they think they can offer the LLH a solution after we are forced to change, for example once no more MySQL/Mariadb security updates come out. The problem is that we can't build our business cases on a solution that might never be offered.
They are forcing us to look at alternatives right now because of that and that's just silly.
Customers that have left and changed over to another solution are unlikely to come back.
 
> this thread seems to head in the direction of describing a company in economical trouble

DA is not only used as a control panel for side projects. And it's unlikely that the forum is a fair representation of their customer base.

We're using DA as part of our services. We decided to upgrade as their offer was more than reasonable to us. But we earn money using it. If you're not earning money with DA and you only have one or two licenses with less than 25 accounts total, I think you should be given a much, much better offer.
 
floyd said:
I would start on page 13.
Click to expand...
Oh... so the problem are the " Internal Licenses " they sold to server selling company's...
Well if thats the case, why dont chase those license people, should be easy to see what people use that license.

For myself i just got 2x 299,- lifetime license from DA them self.
 
> For myself i just got 2x 299,- lifetime license from DA them self.

This should be compensated by DA.

> should be easy to see what people use that license

We were on of them. I never understood why didn't reach out to us. We found out when we couldn't upgrade MariaDB. They should have sent an email. This email should have their explanation, a great offer and a simple question: what can we do to add value for you? That would have given valuable feedback to DA and perhaps a different outcome.
 
There seems to be confusion with the names. What used to be called DA with PRO PACK is now called just DA, or modern DA. DA without PRO PACK is now being called legacy DA.

LLH owners are already getting DA without PRO PACK (legacy DA codebase) and will continue to get it with a legacy license. We are not taking it away. Saying "we do not need PRO PACK" is the same as saying "we want legacy DA".

Maybe the root of the misunderstanding is that LLH owners used to get way too much new stuff. Back then, only a small fraction of niche features were considered to be part of the PRO PACK. Now, when the new features are being separated more cleanly, it causes more discontent.

Over time the gap between legacy DA and modern DA will only continue to grow.
 
smtalk said:
I understand that the recent changes to DA licensing have caused concern, and I want to explain some things one more time (not sure if that's a good idea though?).

Firstly, I want to clarify my personal situation. Due to a severe chronic illness, I am no longer able to contribute to the development of new features as I did in the past. I was not an owner of DA, and I did not ask anything in return. People who work in the team now want they salary and do not agree to work for a small one-time life-time fee to cover life-time development of new features and integrations. Just like many would not want employ people to take care of a server which was rented for a small life-time fee. I personally want DA to survive, and not to be absent of any development. I am not going to make a come-back soon. I do not do any CustomBuild or other development anymore. The only treatment that might help right now isn't for my pocket, so I try to be realistic - changes there aren't going to happen by people who are not getting paid.
Click to expand...
First, thanks for your work, and I hope you will get back to good health soon.

I had only read this thread before but decided to register because I'm really curious, how much money DirectAdmin staff needs to be sustainable?

There don't seem to be more than a few people working on the panel (including support). Servers are a negligible cost, and many people were happy to provide free mirrors, but DirectAdmin itself gave them up.

Assuming that every month 5000 people renew their licenses for an average of 15 dollars. That's $75,000 monthly. Is it not enough to sustain the project? And if fewer people are paying then maybe there is something wrong with the business idea itself after all?

Let's be honest. DirectAdmin has always been a cheap solution and that's why a lot of people (including me) went for it. Now they would take CWP, ISPconfig or Virtualmin, which are not inferior at all, and are free. There are also cheaper paid solutions like Interworx, Webuzo or Virtualmin Pro.

I know that CPanel costs more but it's a completely different class - both in terms of features and support, and I don't understand why DirectAdmin wants to chase it.

DirectAdmin customers are not Hostgator or Dreamhost, but mostly small businesses and hobbyists like me.
 
fln said:
There seems to be confusion with the names. What used to be called DA with PRO PACK is now called just DA, or modern DA. DA without PRO PACK is now being called legacy DA.

LLH owners are already getting DA without PRO PACK (legacy DA codebase) and will continue to get it with a legacy license. We are not taking it away. Saying "we do not need PRO PACK" is the same as saying "we want legacy DA".

Maybe the root of the misunderstanding is that LLH owners used to get way too much new stuff. Back then, only a small fraction of niche features were considered to be part of the PRO PACK. Now, when the new features are being separated more cleanly, it causes more discontent.

Over time the gap between legacy DA and modern DA will only continue to grow.
Click to expand...
LLH?

legacy lifetime also had a promise for lifetime updates and upgrades, so...
 
I think LLH stands for Lifetime License Holder, but could also be read as Legacy License Holder. Now that you have asked out loud I am not so sure anymore :). I might have used the abbreviation incorrectly.

Legacy License Holders do indeed receive all the updates released to the DA legacy codebase and will continue to receive them.
 
> Saying "we do not need PRO PACK" is the same as saying "we want legacy DA".

@fln no. It's like saying 'we want to use our lifetime license as before, with upgrades, without the pro pack'.

> Now, when the new features are being separated more cleanly, it causes more discontent.

No, you're pulling the plug on a core feature like MariaDB upgrades for legacy licenses. You're not separating new features there. As you said, legacy licenses are in the sunset phase. At some point, probably around the EOL of MariaDB, they don't hold much value/use anymore.

It's not the same.
 
fln said:
There seems to be confusion with the names. What used to be called DA with PRO PACK is now called just DA, or modern DA. DA without PRO PACK is now being called legacy DA.

LLH owners are already getting DA without PRO PACK (legacy DA codebase) and will continue to get it with a legacy license. We are not taking it away. Saying "we do not need PRO PACK" is the same as saying "we want legacy DA".
Click to expand...

Now you give more confusions. This thread started from September 2023, after version 1.653 were out without MariaDB 10.11 for legacy codebase. At that time, your Pro Pack didn't mention anything to MariaDB 10.11. It's only appearing magically in the feature list in April 2024, even when the Pro Pack concept was retired, from August 2023.
- Here is the version at Jun 2023.
- Here is the version at March 2024.
- Here is the version at April 2024.

So by your definition, DA version 1.653 should still include MariaDB 10.11 for everyone, because again, MariaDB 10.11 was not listed in Pro Pack at that time. But somehow you already decided to block it, which leads to this thread.

Talking about the Pro Pack, it's "an additional feature-set known as Pro Pack" by your definition. MariaDB, MySQL are not additional feature-set, unfortunately. I agree that it might require more jobs for integrating the new versions to the DA core, but calling MariaDB 10.11 an additional feature-set beside MariaDB 10.6, it is the same meaning that the next versions of PHP, Apache... or whatever, will be additional feature-set. Don't you agree?

OK, I don't want to play word games here. Just feeling disappointed, you know. The more you answer, the more you show how DirectAdmin respects their customers. Might be it's no longer the company I knew 20 years ago when we started colo at 56 Marietta. Or I am too old in this fast changing industry :)

Good luck with the new DA!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top